maddoctor.2738

> @"Macnor.4832" said: > "Is this all a very well hidden/disguised nod towards GW2 alliances?" > Nothing hidden or disguised! More like a blatant declaration of... The point is there are no alliances in Guild Wars 2. And even if there were AND there was something like the GW1 faction for an alliance, it wouldn't be "compatible" with Guild Wars 1 faction. After all the ways you earn faction in one game cannot be compatible with the other, so having a "competition" between two vastly different games is pointless.

> Chair one, the largest, is owned by the GW1 or 2 alliance with the greatest current reputation. For a moment I didn't know what your post was about but then I read this part. Is this all a very well hidden/disguised nod towards GW2 alliances?

The weekly raid achievements (CM and normal) were added in September 2020, 5 years after the initial raid release (November 2015) and a quarter less than 4 years after the release of Bastion of the Penitent (February 2017), the first Raid with "actual" Challenge Motes. Baby steps required and an abysmal slow pace when it comes to Raid changes. As for a daily Raid reset, they could do a reset bi-weekly for starters and see how it goes. Since it's content only a minority plays what could hurt anyway?

> @"sorudo.9054" said: > > @"Khisanth.2948" said: > > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > > @"Khisanth.2948" said: > > > > > @"sorudo.9054" said: > > > > > an option to remove armor (like in the make-over shop) would fix this, able to zoom a bit further out could be a small change that helps tons. > > > > > > > > or just starting with a larger window > > > > > > > > the preview window isn't even large enough for some daggers > > > > > > or play the game on a higher resolution than 800X600, i can see everything just fine on my 2715x1527 resolution. > > > > The size of the preview and TP windows are unaffected by resolution so that is a very stupid comment. > > then why is it a non-issue for me? > the suggested improvement would improve it in one go, a bigger preview doesn't solve anything so don't start with stupid with me. You are using norn and charr characters and have no issues?

It's another wonderful post where we get assumptions, outright lies and an opinion presented as a fact. Then drawing some completely irrelevant conclusion. You can change the game dialogue's language at any time and there are a few to choose from. As for the question at hand, obviously the story is simple so people without a high level knowledge of the English language can follow it, just listen/read what the Asura are saying. Words we use every day, like "Exuberant" and "Rambunctious". Or are they?

> @"Randulf.7614" said: > Apparently skipping dialogue with live chat sequences causes unintended bugs and glitches which are very hard or impossible to fix. It happened to an extent in gw1, but would more pronounced in gw2 I remember the infamous Mallyx skip, where if you skipped the cutscene before fighting the boss, you could bug the door and then fight the boss outside the normal area, and away of nasty adds and debuffs, making the fight a total joke. Anet never fixed that because they simply couldn't. Same situation in GW2, during cutscenes actors move to positions, if you skip them, they won't be at their appropriate positions creating problems.

> @"Ashantara.8731" said: > > @"Samnang.1879" said: > > Can we have like a story related to the emperors and empresses of China? No more dragons please, I'm sick of killing them... > > Well, the expansion's title is "End of Dragons", so naturally it will be about the Elder Dragons. Maybe they will surprise us with a plot twist. Cantha is also called The Empire of the **Dragon**, so maybe what will "end" in the expansion is the empire there? On second thought, maybe it's too far fetched

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > You've somehow missed the point of everything I have said entirely, and yet in the same breath with your own example given, you have proven my point that it would up raid participation rates by allowing everyone to have a chance again. You should read the rest of my post before drawing any such conclusions. It would give everyone a chance (for those that it matters, a very very low one) but it wouldn't increase raid participation rates. And that STILL depends on whether groups find another form of exclusion, after the removal of KP, or if such a method doesn't exist, completely stop raiding. Because nobody wants to bother with your "word of mouth" idea.

> @"Frostfang.5109" said: > Healingpower, toughness, vitality - for healers! Nomad's has **Toughness**, Healing Power, Vitality What do you do that requires so much healing/tankiness?

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > This way everyone gets a chance to at least play. And this is what I pointed out to you. Your "2s" will still have a very low chance of playing anyway. It will go like this: Let's pretend we have a team of 9 people looking for their 10th. Let's also pretend the team won't find another way to filter players (we all know they would, but let's play along shall we?) so, as you say, every gets a chance. Step 1: Open a "no requirements" LFG Step 2: We have 2 possible outcomes here: Step 2a: Team gets one of the 2s, team succeeds, everyone is happy. Huray! or Step 2b: Team gets one of the 3s. Now this splits into 2 possible outcomes again: Step 3a: Team succeeds anyway. The "3" manages to hide their incompetence through seer luck (no important mechanic used on them) or they weren't as much of a "3" after all. or Step 3b: Team fails. The "3" will get the blame anyway (even if it wasn't their fault), will be kicked, and the team will go back to step one. Since we already know that 3s will be the overwhelming majority, I don't think anyone can dispute this, we can see just how low the chances of a "2" will be in getting in a team anyway. > through raw natural organic evaluation This is called a gigantic waste of time for everyone involved. You expect a team to "open up", get any rando out there, with the highest possibility, as already explained, of them being a useless player, "evaluate" them and then what? Create a gigantic block list of all the 3s you meet, so you don't have to evaluate them again, and expand your friend list with all the 2s you meet so you can invite them again later? > Some of you guys are still missing the point here. I'm not stating that this is a better system. I am stating that it would increase raid participation rates. I'm stating that current population & participation rates are so low because players are waiting waaaay too long in line before getting to take a ride, and this is because of KPs. It wouldn't increase raid participation rates though. That will depend on how much time those making the teams would be willing to waste every time they want to Raid. At some point they will simply give up and either stop raiding altogether, or try to raid only if they have a full team. And that's all assuming that the teams won't try to find another way to exclude/filter other players so as not to waste their time.

Or better yet, remove repairing altogether, but that won't happen because it's integrated into core game mechanics (death) so it's more than likely it's very deep in the code. Why add extra hassles for players to go through instead of enjoying the game? I remember the old days in Fractals where you had to port to LA to repair and then go back inside, making sure at least one person from the party stayed inside, otherwise the instance would close and force you to start from scratch. And now not only that but you want repairs to be done by players?

Big no from me too. I remember the old times where you could select traits from more than 3 lines and what it did to Elementalists. The amazing 10/10/10/10/30 (or something like that?) was born, I can't recall the exact specifics but you were using the minor trait of every element line, because it contained a damage modifier. There is a flawed logic, that allowing more choices would lead to more build variety. It will not, because no matter how many choices you add, some of them are simply gonna be better than others. This is the illusion of choice, where you think there are choices, but in reality there aren't. You can also see the effect of "choice" in some specializations. There is choice between the 3 major traits on each tier, yet some are clearly better than others. The choice is there, but there is no extra build variety by that choice.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > Now what you have happening with a KP system such as LIs, is that the system is good at distinguishing player type 1 from 2 & 3, but it is not good at distinguishing player type 2 from 3. and > 2s are ready to complete content but they can't because they are forced to play with 3s and there aren't enough 2s to go around. How do you propose we differentiate between 2s and 3s? Because KP, as you say, is used to separate 1s from 2s and 3s. But how can we put 1s and 2s on the same side, while making sure 3s remain on the other side? Removing KP won't accomplish this. Let's say there is no KP and players don't find something else to gate others, everyone is welcome. How will the situation of the 2s **really** change? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that out of 10 players, 2 are 2s and 8 are 3s. Without LI they will all try to join the squads formed for Raids. Given how statistics work, 2s won't get any easier into groups, the spots will be reserved by the 3s. This will lead to frustration for the 1s, as they won't be able to find competenet players and resort to kicking and actively monitoring anyone they invite, frustration by the 3s, which will be kicked and come here and post about toxicity, and frustration by the 2s themselves because they won't be able to get a spot anyway due to them being a minority overshadowed by the 3s. Eventually, after kicking 4-5 3s, the Raid squads will invite one of the 2s to replace them, but that's all gonna be a colossal waste of time for everyone involved. Or simply "suck it up" and finish the Raid with a few 3s anyway, many squads can finish the encounters with less than 10, which could, again, lead to neglect towards the 2s.

Don't preview gem store items on Norn or Charr, weapons look fine on all other races as they properly fit the preview window. While waiting for a fix you can preview anything you want from the wardrobe, that's what I do. And it looks correct on all races. Although you must remember the names because in the wardrobe you see everything, not only the items on offer. It's annoying, but it works. For a game that is focused on gem store sales to survive and evolve, not having a proper preview option for gem store items makes no sense.

The core maps haven't changed since 2012 and for 8 year old content I think they look good. Newer maps have higher quality textures and more detailed models. For example, go to any Path of Fire and onwards map and look at the night sky, then compare that with the night sky of any core map. It's... day and night in terms of quality. Other games revamp their earlier map graphics, Anet chose not to due to the art style. Guild Wars 2 has a painted art style look and although changing old map details/graphics would be good for some players, others wouldn't like it.

> @"Mortifera.6138" said: > A measly handful of gold? Some achievements are really expensive and require loads of gold, so doing achievements "for the gold" isn't really going to work. As for why I do achievements? Because I like doing things, that's true for mmorpgs and single player games, as nowadays all of them have achievements.

> @"TheThief.8475" said: > I remember when I used to play my first beloved thief in 2013 and **I had already all 5 weapons skills at level 2**! : wasn't it so much more fun than now? No. Because when you got more weapons later on you have to "Grind" again to unlock their skills. With the current system once you unlock the skills, they are unlocked on every weapon you try ever after. There is nothing more annoying than getting a brand new weapon and having no skills to use. They made unlocking the skills of your first weapon slower, but they did speed up the unlock process for multiple weapons considerably.

> @"Lonami.2987" said: > Also, I'd say the legendary skin compensates the gold difference. Plus, you don't get just the existing stats, but any future stats as well. Yes but we've seen in the analysis that the bulk of the cost comes from the ascended materials and it's rather easy to estimate all future stats will also require around 50g to craft (for a short bow). There is a 500 gold difference between the legendary short bow and unlocking every single stat combination, this gives plenty of room for any "future" stats. As for the cost being because of the skin, that 500 gold difference is if you make all 35 different versions of the ascended short bow. The vast majority of players won't need more than 10, and I'm being generous here. With just 10 weapons, the "legendary skin" is valued at 1800 gold, minus any future stat combinations, which is quite excessive. > The prices I followed are based on getting a complete build stored. So, 6 armor pieces, 6 runes, 2-4 weapon slots, 4 sigils, 1 back item, 5 jewelry. Leaving infusions and underwater equipment out, that would be a total of 24-26 (let's round it to 25) items to store. > And this is what led to such terrible value for Legendary items compared to your system. Really different types of items have vastly different requirements in their acquisition, you can't have one price suits them all. I picked the weapon because it's the most expensive of them all, and things like trinkets are basically effortless/free. Your system completely destroys trinkets, as the legendary ones have a similar cost to legendary weapons, plus a LOT of achievement hunting, and the ascended versions are almost free. Same with back slot items, the legendary ones require both a lot of gold AND heavy achievement hunting, while you can get ascended ones for free finishing some achievements. If you want to have a system like this, your proposal should have vastly different values for the different types of items. Different cost for weapons, armor, runes/sigils, trinkets and back item. A cost that is good for a Weapon, is gonna be absolutely terrible for a trinket.

> @"Zok.4956" said: > In reality is is much cheaper to "unlock" all stat combinations, because you do not need to craft all those items. You can just stat swap ascended weapons/armor in the mystic forge, which is a lot cheaper. > That wouldn't work with the rules presented in the first post of the thread, once you put an item in the system you lose the ability to stat swap anymore. I tried to use the rules presented by the thread starter when calculating the cost

> @"Mungo Zen.9364" said: > As you stated, Legendaries do get all stats which is a bonus for sure but, there are 52 (I think I counted right) stat combo for armor/weapon it appears Small correction: There are 36 stat combinations available to Ascended equipment, 11 stat combinations are exclusive to PVP and are not available on Legendary or Ascended items. There are 2 stat combinations, Forsaken and Apostate, that are for leveling equipment also not available on either Ascended or Legendary items since they are not level 80 stat combinations. Finally we have Captain which isn't available on most Legendary/Ascended items as it's a backpack exclusive stat combination.

> @"Lonami.2987" said: > Legendary gear has all existing stats, present and future, that functionality remains intact. In fact, if you're using multiple stats, getting legendary gear instead of ascended would be far more convenient (and in some cases, possibly cheaper as well). Given how cheap (especially when running a lot of "endgame" content) Ascended gear is, how do you suppose Legendary gear will become cheaper than using this system? Let's make an example, Chuka and Champawat costs 2239 gold to make (using gw2efficiency data, which calculates if it's better to craft or buy from TP automatically, I assume the cheapest possible path) > * Heirloom equipment works exactly as legendary equipment, but stat selection is limited to stats you've previously unlocked. Let's see how much gold you'd need to unlock every possible stat combination that is available with crafting (prices rounded up): Zojja: 48g Keeper: 48g Stonecleaver: 47g Chorben: 45g Steelstar: 48g Coalforge: 46g Soros: 48g Beigarth: 47g Angchu: 46g Ventari: 49g Leftpaw: 46g Tonn: 49g Zingtl: 46g Zehtuka 47g Tixx: 48g Verata: 48g Occam: 49g Grizzlemouth: 46g Mathilde: 46g Giftbringer: 47g Tizlak: 49g Svaard: 48g Laranthir: 48g Ossa: 48g Ruka: 49g The Twins: 45g Yassith: 48g Nadijeh: 47g Pahua: 54g Maklain: 51g Nerashi: 45g Theodosus: 47g Hronk: 46g Ebonmane: 49g Wupwup: 49g As you can see, all different Ascended Shortbow types, except Maklain, cost under 50g. Even if we take every stat at 50g, we have 35 stat combinations, giving us a cost of 1750g to have a Heirloom Short Bow that has all the stats, and convinience of the Legendary Short Bow. I know you said "The prices and costs can vary" but for the sake of argument, let's use your own suggested prices > * Purchase an Armory Storage Kit from [Miyani](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Miyani). Storage kits have 20 uses, and a fixed cost of 20 gold plus 200 transmutation charges. 20 gold for 20 uses? In the example above, that's 2 Armory Storage Kits, bringing the cost to 1790g. And 400 Transmutation Charges. At worst you can buy 400 Transmutation Charges directly from the gem store for 2400 gems. You need 34g per 100 gems, so that's 816g, bringing the total to 2606 gold, which is more than the Legendary weapon. However, the price is if you get every single stat (there are 35 of them) AND you have zero transmutation charges available. Also: > * [Transmutation Charges](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Transmutation_Charge) have been removed from the gem store. Additional charges can now be purchased from Miyani in exchange of [spirit Shards](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Spirit_Shard). This essentially keeps the total price of the Heirloom Short Bow at less than 1800g (and with inflated values due to rounding) compared to a legendary weapon that costs almost 2300g. And remember this is for every single stat combination, players that need 5 or 10 of them (out of the 35 total) will pay significantly less. Meaning, your prices are way way too generous. > * Heirloom armor, weapons, and back items include a new exclusive skin upon unlock, which can only be obtained by using the armory system. The second unique aspect of the Legendary items, their skin, is going to be challenged here? That would obviously depend on how good these skins are going to be, and even then it's a very subjective decision, but still this exclusive look, if it's any good, will make Heirloom weapons even better than they already are. Finally we have this part > Any ascended or legendary equipment piece can be stored inside the Armory. Once stored, it can't be taken out. Stored equipment will appear directly inside the equipment tab, taking no inventory space. So 35 inventory items taking no space at all? Either in the bank or any character's inventory? That's huge on its own as the maximum a bag slot can contain is 32 (less than the needed 35) and it requires 400 gems to unlock, bringing us to other important savings compared to using the legendary weapon.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > Yes. Because the first person plays the game every day, while the second doesn't want to anymore. Sure, the veteran player might have been more dedicated _in the past_, but that's already in the past - it's clear that second person does _not_ want to be so dedicated anymore. That doesn't make any sense. The first person plays a few minutes every day, while the second plays a few days, but plays MANY hours. How is a person that logs in every time there is a new episode or festival and finishes all available content "not dedicated", compared to a player that simply logs for a couple minutes to finish the daily. > > A player that logs in for Festivals and new Episode releases and finishes every single achievement provided by them, for 4 years shows much more dedication than a player simply logging in for the dailies for 4 years. > But a way less than someone that does all those things _and_ logs in every day. How many players are gonna continue logging every day and at the same time continue finishing every achievement, past and new, is anyone's guess. Those will be more dedicated than the players that finished all the achievements but stopped caring about the daily AP. But those will also not be the only ones affected by the removal of the cap. > > Because they already put more effort than other players in finishing the rest of the permanent achievements first. > Sure. And then they decided they prefer not to have to put too much effort in order to retain that advantage. They asked for a cap because they _decided they would rather be lazy from that point on_. How are you still saying that is anyone's guess. They still login and finish all achievements when a new episode, expansion or festival is released. They still put more effort and dedication than the vast majority of players that will be affected by the removal of the cap, those that will simply login for the daily and then logout. Those are the lazy ones. > > Now players who are too lazy to finish the permanent achievements want the cap lifted so they can reach what those other players have, without putting any effort. If that's not a desire to be lazy then I don't know what is. > Again, with the (false) assumption that all people that ask for cap removal don't do the permanent achievements. And again with the (false) assumption that the removal of the cap will only affect those doing the permanent achievements AND the daily ones. In fact the vast majority of accounts on this game have a tiny amount of Achievement Points because they simply don't do the permanent ones. But the cap removal will indeed allow those players to lazily acquire any achievement award without putting any effort, the only factor being time. > > > You are not gaining APs from dailies now. > > > > Exactly. So I don't lose anything now. > > > > > You would be gaining APs from dailies from that point on. That's not a loss. > > > > But I'd "lose" all the AP I would've gotten if the cap isn't removed. > That "loss" can be blamed only on introducing the cap in the first place. Yes, you could have obtained all those APs, but as you said, you didn't _because the cap was not removed earlier_. It's the cap itself that prevented you from gaining those APs, not its removal. No the loss is only blamed on a potential removal of the cap. It's the cap itself that doesn't cause me to lose any AP, because I can't gain any in the first place. Once the cap is removed that safety is also gone and I will indeed lose thousands of potential achievement. Introducing the cap did not cause me to "lose" AP, removing it will. > > To stay with the game we play, when they added collection/wardrobe achievements, they retroactively awarded those points to those that had unlocked the items/skins/achievements in the past. So there is more than enough precedent for retroactively giving achievement rewards. > I agree. Unfortunately for you they can't do that, because the dailies are _not_ tracked in any way. Then they can easily give 10 AP for every day that passed between reaching the cap and the day they remove it. That's not like the deletion of items prior to the wardrobe, there is an easy way to calculate how many they should award all their players.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > You are making an assumption here that everyone that asks for the cap to be removed is doing that because they want a specific reward. This assumption is not true. I never made this assumption, I simply point out reasons players ask for the removal of the cap. You can check this thread about it too. Do people ask for the removal of the cap in order to get rewards they are too lazy to acquire otherwise? Yes they do. Just because other players are asking for the removal of the cap out of grudge against other, more accomplished, players, doesn't make what I said untrue. > The people that won't go for other sources would most likely not go for them either way. That's an assumption that isn't really true. Yes, It's a timegate, but it's lazy/effortless AP. See it this way, when AB ML was a thing, it was run by a gigantic number of players because it was the least gold to effort ratio activity in the game. As a result other parts of the game suffered for it, which led to change. Same with all the other similar "amazing" farms for gold we've had over the years. The removal of the cap is like asking for one such effortless farm to be added to the game (for achievement points instead of gold) Not gonna work very well for sure. > Pray, tell me how exactly a mechanic encouraging me to log in daily is going to discourage me from logging in daily, because it seems to be completely counterintuitive to me. I never claimed anything like that. I talked about demotivating players from doing achievements, just like adding the cap demotivated you from playing the game. It's a similarity, not the same thing. > Removing the cap would not remove any content from the game, so i don't see why it would affect you at all. The addition of the cap didn't make any changes to the content of the game either, it's still the same and there to enjoy. If you find the game to have changed away of your desires over the past months/years whatever, then you should aim for changes in that part of the game, that really affect player retention. Instead of a cap. > Considering that it would require from them to log in and play daily for over 4 years just to reach the current cap, no, that's not really lazy. That's dedicated. So you are calling "dedicated" a player logging in daily for 4 years to finish the daily AP, then logging out, and NOT a player that finished every piece of content the game has to offer. I beg to differ. A player that logs in for Festivals and new Episode releases and finishes every single achievement provided by them, for 4 years shows much more dedication than a player simply logging in for the dailies for 4 years. > Besides, anyone dedicated enough to keep logging in daily for many years is almost certainly invested enough to play way more than that. That's just an assumtpion. But if that was the case, they wouldn't need the daily cap to be removed. > In the end, the cap was introduced because a certain group of players _wanted to put less effort into the game_. If that's not a desire to be lazy, then i don't know what is. Because they already put more effort than other players in finishing the rest of the permanent achievements first. Now players who are too lazy to finish the permanent achievements want the cap lifted so they can reach what those other players have, without putting any effort. If that's not a desire to be lazy then I don't know what is. > You are not gaining APs from dailies now. Exactly. So I don't lose anything now. > You would be gaining APs from dailies from that point on. That's not a loss. But I'd "lose" all the AP I would've gotten if the cap isn't removed. That's an actual loss. To stay with the game we play, when they added collection/wardrobe achievements, they retroactively awarded those points to those that had unlocked the items/skins/achievements in the past. So there is more than enough precedent for retroactively giving achievement rewards. > At this point even people that say that a discount for GW2/expansion (or adding HoT into PoF for free now) means they lost they money they've spent on it have a stronger argument than you do. Only a discount, or making the core game free, was a desicion based on economics, it's common for many items, including video games, for their value to drop over time.

> @"Astralporing.1957" said: > And you don't need over 4 years to obtain 15k AP from non-daily sources either. If that was the case people wouldn't complain they can't get achievement rewards they want and ask for the cap to be removed. > In the end, no, people getting AP from dailies alone are not going to obtain them faster than those that will do other things as well. Which is irrelevant anyway. The truth remains that getting 10 AP from dailies will be faster than getting 10 AP from anything else. That's a clear demotivation for doing anything other than dailies. > I have mentioned this in my previous post if you haven't noticed. I didn't notice no. You simply said it demotivated you from logging in. Removing the cap will do the exact same as I said: > How much this is going to motivate anyone is up to the player in question, but in my opinion it's gonna play the exact same role as for those players that stop playing the game because they can't earn daily AP anymore. Same principle. Just because one demotivates you to stop playing doesn't mean the other won't demotivate others. > I don't see why it would do that. And I don't see how the addition of the cap demotivated you and your friends from playing the game. I play the game for the content it provides, not the daily AP. See how that works. > I want to do exactly the opposite. Removal of cap would benefit the veterans the most after all. And it would benefit the non-lazy ones the most. No, you want exactly what I said. Removal of the cap won't benefit the veterans as they will be losing thousands of AP with that change. It will also benefit the lazy ones that don't want to do the permanent achievements and want to reach the rewards they want by playing 5 minutes every day. So no, what you want is exactly what I said. > Those that only log in for holidays would not benefit all that much from it, after all. You have a very weird definition of the word lazy. Someone logging only for holidays is someone that already finished most of the other permanent achievements, right? So a player that invested thousands of hours in the game, doing every single piece of content the game offers is lazy by your standards because thanks to the cap they don't have to login daily for 5 minutes to play the game again and again. Meanwhile, the removal of the cap will allow players that haven't done much (if any) of the permanent achievements the game has to offer, so they haven't played the game itself as much, to reach any kind of achievement reward just by logging in every day and playing for 5 minutes every day. And that's not lazy by your standards? Logging in every day for 5 minutes and then logging out is not lazy for you, but playing for thousands of hours, even if not every day, is lazy... I'm not gonna agree with your definition. > Yes, but that would not be dure to removal of the cap, but _due to it being introduced in the first place_. No you got it backwards. I will be losing the AP because of the removal of the cap, not it's addition. Right now I'm not losing anything because the cap exists, if it is removed at an arbitary moment in the future, that's when I will lose all those AP. I can't lose something that isn't there to begin with, only way for me to "lose" anything is if the cap is removed.

> @"sorudo.9054" said: > and toughness isn't working as well as power, if it did tanks would be far more common. Maybe tanks aren't so common because you only need one in the specific content that requires them... Some encounters might be better with two tanks, but that's it. Power has all the power (pun intended). The dominance of Power in the damage equation means Precision and Ferocity aren't working as well as Power, yet most damage sets use them. It's not the "relative" strength of a stat that matters.